Sept. 26: When jihadis ‘R’ Us – my letter in The Globe

My letter to The Globe on How can we stop the jihadi tourists? – Margaret Wente (tighter version than my post):

The cancellation of passports is not the same as the revocation of citizenship. Cancellation of passports potentially applies to all Canadians, whether born here or naturalized, whether dual national or not. Revocation applies only to those with dual nationality or with the right to another nationality.

Take an example from a Calgary terrorism cell. Canadian-born extremist Damian Clairmont would not have been subject to revocation while “cell mate” Pakistani dual national Salman Ashrafi, who came to Canada as a child, would have been. Both are dead, but there are comparable cases.

Two different punishments for the same crime. Hard to see how this would not be successfully challenged before the courts.

Far better to use the Australian approach, as stated by Prime Minister Tony Abbott: “If you fight with a terrorist group, if you seek to return to this country, as far as this government is concerned, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be jailed for a very long time indeed.”

Sept. 26: When jihadis ‘R’ Us – and other letters to the editor – The Globe and Mail.

A tale of Tory, tories and the torah

Emma Teitel’s well-argued rebuke to Conservative targeting of Jewish voters:

In a larger context, the Tory Pride comments are a microcosm of a fallacy to which well-meaning conservatives who support Israel’s right to exist are prone. I’ve mentioned before that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s ongoing defence of Israel, genuine though it appears to be, is so automatic and unreserved, it can be, for someone who’s Jewish, almost a bit creepy. No Israeli I know is as one-sided in his analysis of his homeland. Usually, when you live in a place for a while, you have at least a few critical things to say about it. I love Toronto, but I don’t like T.O. fixtures Rob and Doug Ford.

Conservatives love to deride knee-jerk liberals who can’t take a joke—the kind of liberals in whose company you dare not make off-colour remarks about sexuality or ethnicity. But conservatives are equally skewed by their own PC touchiness. Their breed simply takes a different form: Israel these days is one of their sacred cows, an object of their guaranteed optimism and goodwill. By this formula, Tel Aviv isn’t allowed to be just a gay-friendly city; it has to be one of the most gay-friendly cities in the world. Israel can’t just be an admirable, resilient country with flaws, it has to be, in its current form—in every form—irreproachable. To suggest that Israel can act immorally is to reveal your true colours: that you’d rather it didn’t exist.

These are false equivalencies, and they put Jews like me in an awkward position—the position, for instance, of having to defend the QuAIA (which I wish would disappear) from John Tory (for whom I’ll probably vote).

When everything constitutes anti-Semitism, nothing is anti-Semitism; words like holocaust and racism lose their meaning, and the resulting fog of moral relativism is bad for more than just Jews. And so, Mr. Tory and attendant candidates running for office, if we’re not part of the story, please leave us alone.

A tale of Tory, tories and the torah.

How can we stop the jihadi tourists? – Margaret Wente

Wente conflates cancellation of passports with revocation of citizenship.

Not the same at all. Cancellation of passports potentially applies to all Canadians, whether born in Canada or naturalized, whether Canadian citizens only or dual nationals.

Revocation on the other hand, applies only to those with dual nationality (or with the right to another nationality).

So take some examples from the same Calgary terrorism cell. The Canadian-born extremist Damian Clairmont would not be subject to revocation while his “cellmate” Pakistani dual national Salman Ashrafi, who came to Canada as a child, would be.

Both are dead, but there are other comparable cases among the known and likely unknown extremists.

Two different punishments for the same crime. Hard to see how this would not be successfully challenged before the courts.

Far better to use the Australian approach, as stated by PM Abbott, “If you fight with a terrorist group, if you seek to return to this country, as far as this government is concerned, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be jailed for a very long time indeed.”

Justin Trudeau, the Liberal Leader, has said he opposes the Conservatives’ new measures, and that homegrown terrorists should be dealt with through the criminal justice system. “I think that a lot of Canadians, including very conservative Canadians, should be worried about the state willing to, and taking the power to, arbitrarily remove citizenship from people,” he said. “That’s a slippery slope that I don’t think we want to go on.”

But Mr. Trudeau – who is now out of step with the rest of the world – will not be eager to raise the subject again. After all, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has allied himself not only with Britain and Australia, but with Barack Obama and the UN.

It’s a very serious matter for governments to revoke the passports of their citizens, restrict their freedom and deprive them of their citizenship. And people who warn that states might abuse their new powers are right. Without vigilance, they probably will.

Finding the balance between national security and personal liberty is always tricky. But our first obligation is to protect ourselves – and the world – from bad Canadians. The virus of murderous fanaticism hasn’t gone away. And it will be around for a long time to come.

How can we stop the jihadi tourists? – The Globe and Mail.

Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia threaten both our communities – Jewish News

More on the parallels between antisemitism and islamophobia by Fiyazz Mughal, Director, Faith Matters, along comparable lines to  my earlier Mirror Images: Antisemitism and Islamophobia:

Others promoted anti-Semitic tropes involving the Rothschilds and blood libel stories, with ‘Zionism’ also used as a catch-all word in much the same way as ’Islamism’ is used by some individuals who try to promote anti-Muslim hatred.

Sadly, some social commentators downplay this anti-Muslim trend and like to suggest it is in no way similar to anti-Semitism.

This is nonsensical.

Let me take the similarities. After the murder of Lee Rigby and the recent Rotherham grooming trials, Muslim women and Islamic institutions suffered hate incidents and law-abiding citizens were affected by being targeted because of their faith.

The blame, it seems, has been laid at the feet of innocent Muslim men and women going about their business, with hate rhetoric involving language associating Muslims with paedophilia, cockroaches, vermin, rats and bacteria.

Much of this language will resonate with those who have studied anti-Semitism and there are clear similarities between anti-Semitic discourse, relations between powerful countries and impacts on victims with anti-Muslim prejudice.

The triggers may be different, but it is clear national or international incidents trigger spikes in reporting.

…Yet, we must also admit some elements of rhetoric, trigger factors and historical interpretations of events between anti-Semitic discourse and anti-Muslim prejudice are different.

Downplaying and denigrating anti-Muslim hatred therefore helps no community, since there is a need to tackle both prejudices collectively.

…Therefore there are issues of community education that need to be addressed. We cannot have prejudice being targeted at a community because of the actions of the Israeli government, nor can Muslims be caricatured as terrorists, extremists or de-facto homophobes.

We have to have these honest conversations.

It is right and important to do so, so those who seek to sow divisions between Muslims and Jews are not given the opportunity.

Our safety and security collectively matter.

With this in mind, there is much work to be done together; without it, the virus of prejudice and bigotry will continue to mutate.

OPINION: Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia threaten both our communities – Jewish News.

In New York, the Prime Minister talks about winning immigrant votes

The “fourth sister” of Canadian politics to use Tom Flanagan’s phrase.

Most of the analysis I have seen (2011 Canada Election Study and related articles) have a similar nuanced understanding of the Conservative Party’s success, but all acknowledge the “showing up” aspect of the outreach by Jason Kenney as having an impact on some communities.

Healthy for Canadian democracy that all parties actively engage new Canadians:

Harper emphasizes his ability to position his party as closer to new Canadians in terms of policy ideas on the economy and crime, and in terms of underlying social attitudes. But how to disentangle those factors from his undeniable success in the past two elections in simply presenting himself as a more resolute, confidence-inspiring leader?

And then there’s this further point the Prime Minister also made today, after he proposed the inherent attraction of Conservative thinking to immigrants: “But we began our appeal first and foremost by showing up, by making sure we’re present at their events, by making sure they have a home in our political party.”

There can be little doubt he’s right that making personal connections, on some level emotional ones, matters greatly. Again, Kenney is widely credited with getting out among various immigrant groups. But isn’t Justin Trudeau proving a huge draw among similar communities? In Trudeau’s case, though, it’s less often a matter of making sure to be present at somebody else’s event, than drawing throngs to his own.

Listening to Harper today, there could be no doubt he’s betting heavily on the immigrant vote when it comes to his re-election chances next fall. No wonder. It’s a major part of what brought him to office. The question is whether his assertion of a deep bond between Conservatives and immigrants, based on enduring ideas and attitudes, is accurate—or if, like so much of our electoral politics, it turns out that this strategic swath of votes responds more to a given leader’s persona than anything else.

In New York, the Prime Minister talks about winning immigrant votes.

Robyn Urback on the HPV vaccine: What’s worse than pre-marital sex? Cancer. That’s what

Robyn Urback on HPV vaccination and opposition by Catholic leaders:

Yet according to a letter penned by Church leaders and distributed to parents of children enrolled Calgary’s Catholic school board, the medical efficacy of the HPV vaccine is still up for debate.

“There is no consensus among those involved in public health in Canada that HPV vaccination is the most prudent strategy in terms of allocating health care resources to address the goal of preventing deaths resulting from cervical cancer,” according to the bishops’ mendacious claim. “We encourage parents to learn the medical facts.”

The bulk of the letter is not concerned with medical facts, however, but rather the propensity for such a vaccination to encourage pre-marital sex. “A school-based approach to vaccination sends a message that early sexual intercourse is allowed, as long as one uses ‘protection,’” the bishops write. “We…would prefer to equip [young people] for proper decision-making.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that while the HPV vaccine has proven nearly 100% effective in preventing cervical precancers caused by four strains of HPV, Catholic teaching over the past, oh, 2000 years, has proven considerably less effective in preventing pre-marital sex. Indeed, equipping young people for “proper decision-making,” prevents neither pre-marital sex, nor HPV infection. It simply leaves young people who have the misfortune of dogmatic-minded guardians at particular risk of catching an infection proven to lead to certain types of cancers.

Robyn Urback on the HPV vaccine: What’s worse than pre-marital sex? Cancer. That’s what

More Americans Favor Mixing Religion And Politics, Survey Says : The Two-Way : NPR

Religion has always been an important force in US politics, more so than in Canada (roughly a quarter of Canadians in the 2011 National Household Survey reported as “nones,” 44 percent in British Columbia):

As we [Pew] reported two years ago, the percentage of those “nones” has grown in recent years, especially among younger Americans. In a 2012 Pew survey, 1 in 5 in the U.S. said he was “religiously unaffiliated,” a group that includes those who say they have no particular religion as well as self-described atheists and agnostics. Among those under 30 years of age, fully one-third said that religion played “little or no role” in their lives.

Other findings in the latest poll: a slight drop in support for allowing gays and lesbians to marry, with 49 percent of Americans in favor and 41 percent opposed; a 5-point dip in support from a February Pew Research poll, but about the same level as in 2013, Pew says. However, Pew notes: “It is too early to know if this modest decline is an anomaly or the beginning of a reversal or leveling off in attitudes toward gay marriage after years of steadily increasing public acceptance.”

There has also been a rise in the number who view homosexuality as a sin 50 percent from 45 percent a year ago. While almost half 49 percent of those surveyed say they believe that businesses such as caterers and florists should not be allowed to reject same-sex couples as customers, nearly as many 47 percent said they approved of such a practice.

More Americans Favor Mixing Religion And Politics, Survey Says : The Two-Way : NPR.

Islamic States call to kill westerners has terrorism experts divided | World news | theguardian.com

One of the better commentators putting the latest ISIS/ISIL threats into context:

Rodger Shanahan, non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy and a former army officer, told Guardian Australia the video was “not earth shattering”, as Al-Adnani has been saying this sort of thing for years, but the specific mention of Australia had caught the media’s eye.

“My view is that if you give these people oxygen it encourages them to do it more often, that’s the whole point,” said Shanahan.

“It’s a pretty good debate to have: if this had not been widely reported, would it really have amounted to anything other than security agencies noting Australia being mentioned specifically by the IS spokesperson?”

“But if you go back over the last couple of speeches there are general references to the west, the Europeans, the Christians. There’s no change of direction at all. It’s just a continuation of what he’s put out there, but nobody has paid particular attention to it in the past.”

Shanahan said that while security agencies have to take it seriously, anyone who might pay attention to the message in the video is already thinking that way.

“The utility of it in terms of attracting more recruits, I don’t think it’s of utility at all. In terms of interest because it mentions us and Canada and France, yes, it’s interesting, but it’s not an earth shattering thing.”

Islamic States call to kill westerners has terrorism experts divided | World news | theguardian.com.

Australian PM warns of strict penalties for returning extremists

Interesting that the Australian PM made no mention of revoking Australian citizenship. Just punishment in Australian jails, despite earlier signs the Australian government was considering revocation (George Brandis won’t say if Australians fighting in Syria will lose citizenship):

“If you fight with a terrorist group, if you seek to return to this country, as far as this government is concerned, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be jailed for a very long time indeed,” Abbott told Parliament.

At least 60 Australians were fighting in Iraq and Syria with Islamic State and another al-Qaida offshoot, Jabhat al-Nursa, also known as the Nusra Front, the prime minister said.

He revealed that more than 60 Australian would-be fighters had had their passports cancelled on secret service advice to prevent them from flying to the Mideast.

Dozens of suspected fighters have already returned to Australia from the battlefields. Security agencies fear that they now pose a domestic terrorist threat.

Australian PM warns of strict penalties for returning extremists.

Unlike Canadian Minister Alexander, who declined to provide numbers on the number of Canadian passports cancelled, PM Abbott was open – 60 passports cancelled:

Outside the Commons, Alexander cited privacy and security concerns for his refusal to release numbers.

“It’s an administrative issue, it’s an operational issue,” he said in response to questions from reporters after question period.

“There are privacy considerations. We will not be saying how many have been revoked … but we have the power to do that.”

Despite a barrage of follow-up questions, Alexander held his ground and denied that he was “afraid” to give a number.

“We will uphold a longstanding practice, which is not to go into the details of operational national security matters,” he insisted.

“That’s absolutely reasonable.”

But Australia’s definition of “reasonable” in disclosing the numbers strikes me as more reasonable:

Revoking ISIS passports: Government refuses to disclose numbers

Jonathan Kay: The one place in Canada where racism is still tolerated: native reserves

Jon Kay tackles the thorny integration vs accommodation issue with respect to First Nation reserves:

On the other hand, let’s give the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake their due, shall we? In the modern context, what is the point of the reserve system except to give natives a space that provides them with a measure of autonomy and cultural “authenticity”? Having embraced the notion that one’s bloodline dictates ones rights a notion dismissed as racist in every other context of public discussion and policy formation, Canadian liberals have been forced to accept its noxious corollary — which is that the presence of white people in the midst of reserves comprises a sort of cultural pollutant.

This is the reason politicians and public figures are so loathe to take a strong stand against the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake and other native groups that strike militant postures on behalf of native identity: Such criticisms implicitly strike at the very heart of the utopian liberal notion that natives flourish best among their own, in protected, demographically homogenous enclaves that are geographically rooted in their traditional lands.

In every other context, Canadian liberals zealously embrace the idea of diversity and multiculturalism. In liberal cities such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, the sight of people of every skin colour living side by side, including as husband and wife, is taken as a neighbourhood’s badge of enlightenment. But if the neighbourhood happens to be a native reserve, the exact opposite premise holds sway: Run whitey out of town.

Eventually, Canadians are going to have to make up their mind on the diversity-versus-segregation question. It’s simply untenable to say that while the United Colors of Benetton are ideal for whites, natives should be free to construct miniature societies based on racist principles that were decisively rejected by Abolitionists two centuries ago. It’s an embarrassment to Canadian values and a cruelty upon those natives who have committed no crime except to fall in love with someone of a different skin colour.

Lawrence Hill in his Massey Lectures in Blood picks up a similar theme from an identity perspective (see Blood by Lawrence Hill):

Jonathan Kay: The one place in Canada where racism is still tolerated: native reserves